Leveraging the Heterogeneity of Critical Thinking: Creating New Classroom Knowledge

John D. Rudnick, Jr., Daniel J. Cahill, and Anthony C. Schumacher Posted on
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

DOI: https://doi.org/10.64010/GOLP1920

Abstract

This paper examines the literature on the creation of new classroom knowledge in higher education. Amongthe stakeholders identified, faculty members surfaced as a key force for meeting student-centric knowledge-creation needs. Global feedback from other stakeholders, employers, reveals a problem: students graduating from college lack competencies required for workforce application of higher-order thinking. Globalization, advances in technology, competition, and accountability are among forces creating barriers that are potentially impeding knowledge development The literature suggests that students are graduating from universities without the ability to solve complex problems—a foundational skill for business success. Critical thinking emerges as a foundation and a potential solution to mitigate this problem. The heterogeneity of critical thinking supports this foundation by offering versatility, adaptability, and flexibility into faculty member curricula and teaching methods.  A new critical thinking model, “The Wheelhouse Intersect Model”, is introduced to help faculty link critical thinking, brainstorming and strategic planning, which may help students become better prepared to meet the aforementioned business challenges upon graduation and address the knowledge gap.  Recommendations for future areas of study of knowledge creation are provided on the topics of competitive strategy, online learning evaluation and assessment, and faculty development.

Introduction 

The competitive pressures facing higher education have never been greater (Dunnion & O’Donovan, 2014). The reality for universities and colleges in the 21st century is that they are not properly preparing students for the demands of the workforce.  Given the increasing need for talent, institutions need responsive, adaptive, and transformative change to meet demand and remain competitive. Employers report that students graduating from colleges and universities lack the competencies required for workforce application of higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills (Scott, 2008). Reid and Anderson (2012) report that 70% of Americans do not understand the scientific process, which infers a gap in basic reasoning skills—known commonly in business settings as “good business sense” or “business savvy.”

Globalization, advances in technology, competition from other colleges and universities, and accountability to multiple stakeholders are among the forces working against the sustainability of many higher education institutions (Bahhouth & Bahhouth, 2011; Barbera, Layne, & Gunawardena, 2014; Dill, 1999; Emes & Innes-Cleveland, 2003; Matheson, Wilkinson, & Gilhouly, 2012; Stukalina, 2008. While not a panacea, educating and developing future talent that can think critically can be a competitive advantage for higher institutions that want to remain relevant.

The healthcare community generally refers to a “triple-aim” when assessing an institution’s or community’s health and the efficacy of care delivery.  Three pillars —improved quality, reduced cost, and improved patient experience—can be summarized as basic units of measurement to help identify healthcare’s effectiveness (McCarthy, 2015).  A relevant (newly-introduced) parallel construct that might also apply between the healthcare and higher education fields is coined as  “the triple aim of  higher education” —high quality, reasonable cost, and high stakeholder satisfaction. The pillars of this construct can be used as basic units of measurement to anchor, assess, and help identify the efficiency and effectiveness of higher education outcomes. Adopting the model, high quality, reasonable cost, and high stakeholder satisfaction might be outcomes best measured for higher education using standardized testing, course grading rubrics, and end of course satisfaction surveys. The authors introduce these three pillars and argue that these tools and outcomes can help measure and gauge students’ effectiveness as it relates to critical thinking.  In order for students to learn effectively, they need to be engaged.  They also need engaged faculty as an active force for driving new classroom knowledge-development. The authors believe that adoption of critical thinking as a heterogeneous tool will help fill the workforce readiness problem when delivered in a highly student-centric manner. When colleges create and offer a quality education using critical thinking as a foundation for learning at a reasonable cost, the net effect is satisfied graduates and their future employers.  

Academic critical thinking models have helped to shape curricula and approaches to teaching. However, these models do not adequately address the practical needs of the modern college student and the needs of the business community. Thus, there is a need for models of critical thinking that can transform idea generation into concrete and practical options for issue resolution or opportunity improvement—fundamental skills needed in any business environment.  A new critical thinking model, “The Wheelhouse Intersect Model” (“Model”) will address the gaps in the literature.  It has been developed for its practicality and usefulness as a concrete tool to analyze, evaluate, and create breakthrough thinking and new ideas generated through processes similar to brainstorming and strategic planning. The new Model builds on the higher order thinking elements of Bloom’s Taxonomy Model (Krathwohl, 2002).  The following will include background and information on select critical thinking definitions and forces driving the need for critical thinking in higher education. Opportunities for further research on the topics of competitive strategy, online evaluation and assessment, and faculty development are proposed.

Literature Review

The proposed Model stems from several areas of study and has implications for several stakeholders including university administrators, employers, faculty, and students.  The authors also highlight relevant research that relates to learning methods at the university level.  The first relevant research area examined as part of the model building process is critical thinking.  The following will examine the lack of critical thinking curricula, and how this has impacted students and the workforce.

Forces Affecting Higher Education

Responsive, adaptive, and transformative change is needed to increase students’ critical thinking and complex problem-solving competencies. Organizations must be skilled at fostering creativity as well as acquiring and transferring knowledge (Barbera, Layne, & Gunawardena, 2014). Critical thinking is a construct that is discussed in the literature as both essential and invaluable for addressing this requirement for change. Historians have championed the concept of freedom of thought and speech to establish the basis for reflective and critical thinking (The Critical Thinking Community, 2016). An examination of the fundamental bases for critical thinking through the linkage of critical thought with free speech and religious liberty (The Critical Thinking Community, 2013) appears to be re-emerging as relevant to addressing the need for change.

There are several prevailing forces that can impact a new worker coming out of school, including globalization, technology, competition, and accountability.  Globalization within the business community is becoming a part of everyday work life.  Once thought of as a separate business unit or new initiative, global business is business.  Similarly, technology is an enabler for all aspects of an individual’s work life.  Certainly students understand how to communicate via technology, but they may not be trained on how it can be used to create a competitive advantage in a world market.  Competition in the world market is another area that students may not be prepared based on their current curriculum.  Reading about competition for talent, resources, and revenue is different than understanding how these elements fit together to create success.  Finally, students get some level of exposure to accountability by learning about the notion of dashboards and scorecards.  Still, this is one-dimensional learning akin to showing and asking a worker to run a machine by reading a manual without the benefit of hands-on training.  Taken together, these are multi-dimensional, complex issues that highlight the demand for workers who can sort, analyze and problem solve at the same speed with which these issues arise in their work lives.  These issues underscore the need for our centers of higher learning to teach students how to think.

Definitions

Rowles, Morgan, Burns, and Merchant (2013) argue that one cannot teach what one does not know. Integrating critical thinking history, philosophies, theories, and definitions in this paper will help frame an understanding of critical thinking as a knowledge construct. The Critical Thinking Community (2013) reports that critical thinking, characterized by application of its versatile elements, standards, and virtues, is a rich concept that has evolved over 2500 years.  While there are multiple overlapping descriptions of critical thinking, the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking share the commonly embraced definition, introduced in 1987, by Michael Scriven and Richard Paul: “Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.” (The Critical Thinking Community, 2013, para. 2).

One of the early critical thinking theorists, John Dewey, referred to critical thinking as “reflective thinking” (as cited in Hsiao, Chen , & Hu, 2013) and contributed the following description:  “Active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of grounds that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends.”(p.18)   Scott (2008) explains Halpern’s critical thinking definition as the use of cognitive skills or strategies to increase the probability of a desirable outcome. Terry and Ervin (2012) assert that critical thinking is the cognitive engine that drives problem solving and decision-making.  Rowles et al. (2013) support what most experts agree upon—that the presence of critical thinking involves the inclusion of cognitive as well as affective dispositions (attitudes). For purposes of this research, the authors of this paper define critical thinking as the application of focused reflection and reasoned thought.

The Problem

Federal studies report on poor technology literacy, reading, and math skills among Americans and indicate that 70% of Americans do not understand the scientific process (Reid & Anderson, 2012). The lack of critical thinking in education is significant because it also impedes the development of another “higher order thinking” component– problem solving skills (Hsaio et al.,2013). Yet, employers require the application of critical thinking and complex problem-solving as fundamental workforce skills (Bloch & Spataro, 2014; Coi & Sankaran, 2015). The problem is that curricula design by faculty is likely not focusing on critical thinking as a student-learning outcome; nor is it likely that outcomes are being assessed and measured. A sub-problem exists in the inability to easily apply critical thinking fundamentals to practical business matters. Consequently, institutions graduating students who are not equipped with the appropriate training or skills to enter the workforce. 

To facilitate students’ transitions from school to work, functional workforce requirements for students must be identified by employers and these must be factored into student learning outcomes.  Relevant key metrics for assessment must be implemented by universities and colleges. If an outcome is not measured, it is likely not going to be identified, celebrated or addressed. For example, metrics for business students might include an ability to satisfy the following: clarity and effectiveness in oral and written communication skills; awareness of emotional intelligence relative to accepted principles of leadership/management/supervision; ability to manage workplace conflict; ability to participate in consensus-building to work in groups and teams; and awareness of and ability to manage or influence the costs associated with providing benefits for employees. 

Pedagogy vs. Andragogy

Children and adults have different learning needs and goals. Traditionally, pedagogy is associated with child and adolescent learning and is characterized as a “top-down” or authoritative teaching style (Bahhouth & Bahhouth, 2011.) Conversely, the term “andragogy”, coined by the German educator Alexander Knapp in the 1800’s and popularized by Malcolm Knowles in the 1960’s, is focused on the teaching of adults. This latter style is deemed more self-directed, self-motivated, collaborative, and co-operative (Bahhouth & Bahhouth, 2011; Diffen, 2015). Technology serves as a likely appropriate option for the current younger generations of “digital natives.” 

Mandernach (2006) reports on research where faculty members felt that promotion of critical thinking was one of the primary objectives of their instruction. Faculty members need to be aware that their feedback and expertise are two critical areas that support student learning (Sorenson, 2015). Developing competencies in the area of critical thinking is a responsibility of faculty members to maintain proficiency in meeting the evolving stakeholder-driven needs of students.  In short, faculty members recognize the need for critical thinking.  They understand their role in the process, and they appreciate that a deficit in critical thinking skills hampers students’ ability to assimilate to their work lives.  

 Awareness, knowledge, and critical thinking consistency in the classroom are essential for instruction that incorporates critical thinking application for smooth student transition of classroom knowledge to practical real-world settings. (Rowles, et al., 2013). Emes & Cleveland-Emes (2013) emphasize the importance of an institution’s core- curriculum structure from which students acquire explicit knowledge. Barbera, Layne, & Gunawardena (2014) also emphasize that faculty course design is a key success determinant in knowledge advancement.

In order to understand the role of faculty members among students in developing skills, the degree of faculty readiness and familiarity for incorporating these constructs into knowledge delivery for students is important to assess. While critical thinking is seen as an educational objective, research indicates that faculty members are generally unaware of critical thinking principles (Stedman & Adams, 2014). Though faculty members may self-report critical thinking knowledge and proficiency, few faculty members actually can demonstrate this; and most faculty members cannot identify their teaching elements that develop critical thinking (Paul, 2004).   In addition, universities and colleges consider using more adjunct staff to teach courses in an effort to decrease costs, the relevance of this issue increases as the supply of instructors coming from the business-world are typically not acquainted with the academic aspects and labels attached to critical thinking. As these different issues converge, it is clear that faculty need to enhance students’ critical thinking skills.  Yet, the erosion of critical thinking as a curricula component, cost savings strategy by universities, and a lack of critical thinking woven into curricula impedes students from developing the problem solving skills they may need as they enter the workforce.

Stakeholder Background

There are multiple stakeholders groups that have a vested interest in bridging the critical thinking curricula gap that include university administration, faculty and students. Some insight into how interested parties can influence knowledge development establishes an additional foundation for the complexities and opportunities involved with multifaceted group collaboration. 

Stakeholders and Stakeholder Engagement 

Deloitte (2008) defines stakeholders as “groups who affect and/or could be affected by an organization’s activities, products or services and associated performance . . . organizations will have many stakeholders . . . with diverse and sometimes conflicting interests and concerns” (p.2) Higher education stakeholders are faced with a complex critical thinking knowledge-divide. For higher education, stakeholders include the board of directors, administrative leadership and staff, faculty members, students, employers, and the area communities served.  For new-knowledge classroom cultivation, higher education stakeholders need to become engaged in the process.  Stakeholder Engagement is the “process used by an organization to engage relevant stakeholders for a purpose to achieve accepted outcomes (Deloitte, 2008, p.2). Accordingly, to engage students and assess learning styles, faculty members must be aware of the problem and understand which tools and teaching methods are available to address it.  

If deficits in student performance and workforce readiness are indicators of the sickness, faculty members are the cure. Faculty members are well-positioned to influence and affect learning outcomes by applying critical thinking elements, standards, and virtues through skilled and purposeful teaching strategies. 

Faculty Member Awareness and Familiarity

If faculty do not acknowledge and understand critical thinking methods, it is virtually impossible to enhance students’ critical thinking skills. Kemp (2011) establishes that content knowledge is short-range focused on subject matter skills where cultivation of critical thinking is long -range focused on applying knowledge, as situations arise, to life-long challenges. Faculty members are in a conundrum given their finite resources: Either teach content that encourages short-range retention or take a chance and teach higher order thinking skills that offer long-range skills development. In short, faculty members are often caught in the middle, forced to choose between lower level or higher-level knowledge development in the classroom. Faculty face challenges while weaving critical thinking skills into the fabric of their curricula.  

Faculty members need to be aware that students of all ages need the competencies and confidence to face the new and complex challenges in the working world. Stedman and Adams (2014) assert that learning styles need to be adapted to students’ preferences, and that faculty members need to appreciate the value of applying critical thinking to learning styles. Faculty members need to be aware of these differences and the attendant resources to meet students’ needs and expectations. 

It is likely that faculty members may not have an exhaustive resource of tools needed to incorporate critical thinking into their courses.  A host of models and tools are available for employing critical thinking to augment teaching methods. Smilkstein (1991) asserts that it is the role of teachers to help students construct schemas (i.e., a mental picture of something we have learned) for each skill or subject taught.  A recent survey best illustrates the need for faculty development.  

A small convenience sample survey (n=42) was conducted in the Department of Business Administration at Thomas More College, Crestview Hills, KY, targeting adjunct faculty members who teach an average of two courses per year.   A Survey Monkey tool was used resulting in 27 faculty member responses (64%).  Of the 27 faculty member respondents, 13 (48 %) self-reported proficiency or solid familiarity with critical thinking academic constructs. Conversely 14 faculty members (52 %) indicated either no knowledge or a lack of familiarity with critical thinking as a discipline. While three respondents indicated uncertainty, 23 faculty members (85 %) indicated a strong desire to learn more about critical thinking. These findings, while anecdotal, suggest an opportunity for a faculty development program to increase awareness of a useful teaching tool and method. Barbera, Layne, & Gunawardena (2014) strongly endorse the promotion of a faculty development program to help them develop effective teaching strategies for online learning.

Students, Employers, Higher Education Institutions,
and Knowledge

Based on the observations above, faculty members’ awareness of the importance of other key stakeholders and issues in the knowledge-creation process is important. Considerations for academic course development need to prioritize employer needs while recognizing the reality of prudently expending limited resources to do so. The literature below highlights the need for how other stakeholders are instrumental in the knowledge development process.

Students 

Student-engagement in processes that fosters active learning and self-development is likely to stimulate student interest and curiosity. Styles and learning strategies that are student-centered characterize the progressive style of knowledge creation in the future (Al-Mubaid, 2014; Bahhouth & Bahhouth, 2011; Ennes & Cleveland-Innes, 2003; Hsaio et al., 2013). 

Employers

Bloch and Sparturo (2014) indicate that employers are calling for employees with particular skills and experiences. Critical thinking is among these skills. Hansson and Monsted (2008) support the development of partnerships and relationships between the business community and higher education institutions that can identify skills and integrate development into the workplace (Scott, 2008.) Workforce cultures that promote critical thinking need to be cultivated to foster and promote a “critical spirit”, “critical dispositions”, and “critical spillovers” (Shaw & Holmes, 2014; Stedman & Adams, 2014.) 

Higher Education Institutions

Steyn (2015) asserts that the ability of students to learn faster is a way for institutions to gain a competitive advantage in the higher education marketplace. Leaders in higher education shape a positive higher educational culture through visionary growth strategies. Charismatic and visionary leaders can initiate ideas such as research and entrepreneurship activities on campuses to avail campuses of new revenue funding streams (Monsted & Hansson, 2010).  Dunnion and O’Donovan (2014) caution against authoritarian leadership styles among those at the helms of higher education institutions. A disadvantage and negative consequence of a “command and control” style of leaders is that it typically results in inferior and expensive services in the long-run. Conversely, transformational leaders characterized by high degrees integrity and values experience more efficacious styles and sustaining outcomes. Transformational leaders are preferred to employ strategies that result from a more effective participatory style (Rudnick, 2009). 

Knowledge

Knowledge is important because it is what offers universities and colleges their number-one distinctive strategic competitive advantage (Emes & Cleveland-Innes, 2013). Unfortunately, the literature reveals many examples of deficits in modern teaching methods and resources. Faculty have become subject matter experts in content areas; however, the content may not provide the life-long skills that students need and employers demand.  There are a host of methods and tools for consideration for faculty to consider embracing, but these methods may not meet the practical needs of faculty for incorporation into their teaching plans. Content-matter and knowledge needs to be packaged and conveyed in a practical and manner useful for prospective employment. Higher order thinking skills also need to be considered, planned, and incorporated in order to bring context and relevance to the classroom.

Critical thinking is also the basis for other key skills such as communication basics.  Strategic written and oral communication skills are essential for higher education graduates at all levels.  Clifton (2012), reports that critical thinking is at the heart of academic writing. Development of effective written and oral communication teaching strategies offers one opportunity for differentiation in the marketplace. Universities and colleges are the creative spaces where people can find themselves through writing. Badley (2009) discusses the practices of refined writing; and contributions in the form of deconstructing and reconstructing to form new material for greater networking and relationship building. 

Partnerships, connections, and networking have a similar resonance in the context of parallels between business activities and entrepreneurship growth. Research and knowledge need to be part of the outcome from entrepreneurial activities. For select oral communication development, Scott (2008) emphasizes the importance of debates as an effective tool and process for cultivating student knowledge. General science courses as well as technology courses are identified as great course types for students to learn critical thinking skills. 

Technology: Virtual Resources 

As in most modern issues, technology has a role to play as universities, students, and faculty partner to create a better outcome using critical thinking principles.  Advanced internet-based learning, through innovations in technology, has become an integral part of the higher education academic environment. (Bahhouth & Bahhouth, 2011). Verpoorten, Westera, and Sprecht (2011) share that today’s electronic learning environment offers new opportunities for reflective thinking. Discussion concerning the uses and potential for technology application in higher education is provided below. 

Online Learning

While technology has revolutionized approaches to higher education learning (Zheng, Stucky, McAlack, Menchana, & Stoddart, 2005), this resource could be considered both a blessing and a curse, from the perspective of faculty.  Reliance on retrieving instantaneous information from the internet can be considered a crutch that does not help people to reflect or cultivate critical thinking skills. Aborisade (2009) points out that technology redefines the classroom and narrows the digital-divide among socioeconomic groups and has the ability to ameliorate many of the struggles facing higher education. 

Technology can contribute to creativity by providing innovative space, forums, and opportunities that are flexible and convenient for engaging in knowledge creation opportunities. A disruptive feature of technology is that it can be a force that redirects learning and knowledge creation away from the traditional classroom (Arborisade, 2009). For adults, technology can help improve overall stakeholder satisfaction by making the learning process more accessible and realistic. Technology (i.e., online learning) as used by adult students, who have busy lives with family and work, has markedly increased access for expanded learning opportunities among this growing student population. 

Advances in technology have improved processes and methods for engaging in communication (written and oral) strategies to improve efficiency and effectiveness in operations with multiple resources and tools. However, with changes that emphasize more technology, there is sometimes a concomitant potential shortcoming. One could argue that students do not write well because they do not think well.  Technology impacts writing skills in the sense that terse communication through email and texts is evolving into an accepted workplace communication style and norm. This communication approach does not help students maintain a level of practice and rhythm for smooth flowing cohesive discourse that is academically robust, grammatically accurate, and properly constructed. Critical thinking skills development can contribute to addressing this shortcoming among students and potential employees.  

Bahhouth and Bahhouth (2011) report more positive findings concerning online learning outcomes that indicate an equal learning effectiveness involving online (e-learning) and ground/face-to- face methods. From an employer perspective one can generalize these findings to both classroom learning opportunities and employer-based training in the field.  While this area of study is yet unexplored, one might argue that an intangible benefit of online learning deals with different learning styles. Some students admit to self-consciousness and, therefore, hold back on contributing to class discussions. Online learning addresses this self-consciousness and allows students to take more of a risk and express themselves, thus avoiding potential criticism in face-to-face settings.

Additional information is needed between studies and variables relative to the training level of online learning, its benefits, pitfalls, and requirements for future research (Bahhouth & Bahhouth, 2011). Mundernach (2006) supports the use of online resources to supplement teaching strategies. For efficiency of resource use and time, online tools can be used to convey lower-level content material. Higher order thinking and teaching can occur in the classroom to supplement activities for increased depth of knowledge coverage and creation, and critical analysis of course material can be considered.  

Tools and Resources

Online learning is an example of a “disruptive technology” that has dramatically altered the creation of knowledge. Al-Mubiad (2014) asserts that online learning should be revolutionizing critical thinking; however, critical thinking is not highly promoted in online learning. Many faculty members and higher education administrative staff do not value online learning. Some faculty members feel that it is an inferior form of knowledge creation.  Sorensen (2005) asserts that institutional sustainability is one distinct advantage of online learning. Williams and Lahrman (2011) support online discussion as an effective means of encouraging instruction and critical thinking. Online discussion boards provide supportive student scaffolding for knowledge creation and foster collaboration vs. competition (Barbera, Layne, & Gunawardena., 2014; Hsiao, Chen, & Hu, 2013). Webquests (Zheng et al., 2005) are among  other  important virtual learning tools that include wikis, aggregated data bases (e.g., EbscoHost and ProQuest), web-sites, podcasts, and blogs. (Aborisade, 2009; Thormann, Gable, Fidalgo, & Blakeslee, 2013).       

Solution

Bloch and Spataro (2014) report on positive experiences with the use of Socratic questioning methods through the use of case studies. Thormann et al. (2013), and Bahhouth and Bahhouth (2011), report that “student moderators” can generate freer discussion and analysis of ideas. Williams and Lahman (2011) share findings on the positive effects of using student “starters” and “wrappers” to ease and promote online discussions.  (Starters and wrappers refer to sample beginning and ending stimuli.)  Reflection triggers are basic prompts, identified by Verpoorten, Westera, and Specht (2011), which serve as the foundation for initiating and refining improved discussion processes. Kalelioglu and Gulbahar (2014) identify opportunities to incorporate multiple methods for assessment in online learning and note the complexity of the assessment process.

Gap Synopsis

The gap in critical thinking awareness and teaching competencies among faculty members is clear.  This assertion is supported through a comprehensive literature search, a brief field survey, and suggested opportunities for further improvement by multiple critical thinking subject matter experts. For those in the field of leadership and business, there is recognition of a disconnect between how systematic business principles and how academic institutions approach resolution to this problem of “a gap.” Explicit, concrete options to ameliorate this gap can be achieved by considering the following:

The shift away from critical thinking has left faculty members and students within a conundrum: The market demand for critical thinking from employers is increased. In economic terms, the “supply” of producing and delivering curricula that focus on critical thinking skills in universities and colleges has failed to keep pace with “demand.” The result is that faculty experience dissonance (i.e. content vs. critical thinking) while students emerge without necessary preparedness.

  • Administrators at universities and colleges have failed to articulate clear expectations for faculty who are not promoting critical thinking skills.
  • Incorporation of critical thinking in student learning outcomes by faculty and measurement of those outcomes by administration is likely not occurring.
  • Several essential factors (e.g., faculty awareness, knowledge, and training as well as acquiring advanced technology) could be propelling critical thinking skills forward in students, but a lack of priority in strategic planning has kept critical thinking skills tamped down.
  • Even if all of the above were to be resolved, the current critical thinking models executed through all of these channels may not be able to support the complexity needed to flourish in the current business environment.
  • Employers demand “out of the box” thinking, which drives the need for an “out of the box” model to promote critical thinking.  

Faculty members are on the “front line” and are likely the primary drivers of curriculum and learning.  The methods they use (e.g., on-line learning, technology) are relatively new tools for learning, but critical thinking remains an important basis for education.  These are brought together in this new model that the authors introduce to help bridge learning, new technology, faculty and employers.  In order to engage students and assess learning styles, faculty awareness of the need to have multiple teaching methods and tools available is important. The above gaps reveal the need for a model that can enable critical thinking as a foundational learning tool, offer faculty options when building curriculum with limited resources and incorporate the reality of technology as part of its delivery: The Wheelhouse Intersect Model. 

The Wheelhouse Intersect Model

The purpose of The Wheelhouse Intersect Model (Model) is to offer a framework for generating new ideas using basic critical thinking principles. [A wheelhouse originates with a nautical linkage as an enclosed structure on the deck of a ship from which it can be navigated (merriam-webster.com, 2015).  It can be generally seen as the part of a batter’s strike zone most likely to produce a home run; or a place or situation in which one is advantageously at ease (oxforddictionary.com, 2016).  A wheelhouse is also analogous to the “sweet-spot” of a tennis racquet where the most effective force of a connection can be expected (merriam-webster.com, 2015).]   

Idea Integration

The Model itself combines the following elements: construct—e.g., critical thinking/strategic planning; domain—e.g., academic discipline or activity/workplace issue; and context—face-to-face/virtual setting with higher order thinking facets from the education classic, originally established for developing educational objectives, by Bloom’s Taxonomy. Parallel constructs and components that helped to form this model include cross-disciplinarity, select elements of current critical thinking methods and tools, as well as elements from the business field combine to help form this model.

The intersection of the boundaries from these facets represents a pictorial image of the space where creative thinking and idea generation has the potential to occur. Hansson and Monsted (2010), report that new knowledge is created on the boundaries of disciplines. Emes and Cleveland-Innes (2003) define interdisciplinarity as the purposeful integration and synthesis of knowledge, skills, and methodologies from different fields of study and perspectives (p. 59). The opportunity for considering different fields of study coming together for consideration is an underpinning principle of the model. The space formed, where multiple new concepts or variables from multidisciplinary dimensions intersect with common elements or parallel academic constructs, creates new opportunities and information for the connection of ideas. This can result in knowledge through this semi-structured brainstorming process consisting of thoughts and ideas. The process of “driving the wheel” and navigating information to create new knowledge is a value of this model and contribution to the Critical Thinking Community.

One practical application of the Model can be explained in conjunction with “change theory.”  Kurt Lewin’s unfreeze, change and freeze/refreeze process (change-management-coach.com, 2015) outlines an efficient approach that combines an algorithmic flow, applying process improvement to identify the different use of existing resources to further improve or change a process to meet a need. Incorporation of this model provides an opportunity to achieve improvement by reassembling and without increasing cost or net resources. This use of existing resources could be one outcome. Another outcome of applying this Model is the innovation established out of a strategic need to differentiate, innovate, or fulfill a new need. The need could include problem resolution, process improvement, a strategic planning opportunity, or part of an entrepreneurial thought process.

Application 

The method for applying the new Model follows:

  • Identify the concept intersect components—i.e., construct, domain, and context. Consider and identify the successful components and/or processes of each and why these are successful.
  • Conduct a structured brainstorming participatory process where ideas are exchanged –perhaps one at a time in a group—initially; then in turn until ideas are exhausted.
  • Comment and piggyback off ideas; identify ideas and prioritize.
  • Generate possible options/solutions to satisfy an unmet need.

Other approaches/ considerations follow:

  • Begin with the end results in mind.  Establish opportunities or desired outcomes and construct a model that satisfies the desired outcome and accommodates refinements. Conduct a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (S.W.O.T.) analysis of each existing resource.  Consider the analysis to identify, for example, opportunities.
  • Consider where the concept is in The Product Life Cycle –i.e., introduction, growth, maturity, or decline phases of “the intersect” components and space.
  • Assess the “5 Ms” of manufacturing (5me.com, 2015) for select needs: Manpower, Materials, Machines, Methods, and Metrics– to identify necessary resources/ ideas to meet the issue/idea/targeted opportunities.

Discussion

The triple-aim of higher education—high quality, reasonable cost, and stakeholder satisfaction is considered in relation to new knowledge development. Critical thinking emerges, from the evolutionary process of cognitive reflective thought, as an underpinning theme involving important stakeholders. An analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of the literature reinforces the pivotal role played by faculty members through application of critical thinking strategies. In addition to students, others with vested interests in knowledge creation include higher education institution boards, higher education administrative staff, employers, and the communities served. Faculty member awareness of critical thinking is a dire need in the knowledge-creation process.

Advances in technology have redefined the traditional classroom through virtual communication and the “disruptive innovation” of on-line learning platforms. A new model, “The Wheelhouse Intersect Model”, provides a method for further developing idea generation and brainstorming that could help narrow the knowledge-divide that exists in higher education today.

Knowledge is the most valuable asset that higher education institutions can boast. Cultivation and refinement of knowledge creation processes are indicated. The host of variables influencing knowledge creation focuses on learning processes and considerations for faculty members who navigate and drive approaches to student engagement suggest multiple areas for future exploration and study.  The areas that seem fertile for future research include the following:  evaluation and assessment of critical thinking using online learning; the effects of critical thinking on competitive advantage and strategic differentiation; and a faculty development program to heighten an awareness of critical thinking tools, as well as movement toward more active learning styles.

Recommended Areas for Future Study

Select opportunities for future research and recommendations for future study (with select variables addressing the knowledge gap pressures categorized in parentheses) follow: Apply benchmarking and critical thinking processes to facilitate cross-discipline course re-design for efficient fulfillment of curriculum core requirements (globalization/competition); consider if critical thinking can mitigate faculty resistance to technology and online learning for course delivery (technology/competition); establish effective initial and ongoing training and development programs for faculty members (accountability); develop expectations for critical thinking including rubrics; and evaluation and assessment strategies for face-to-face and online learning venues. (accountability); benchmark and consider how to cultivate technology development on higher education campuses through incubators and accelerators in partnership with businesses (technology, competition, globalization); apply technology to further develop learning communities for reducing the community chasm between residence life students and commuters through technology (competition, accountability, technology, globalization); and, explore feasibility of and initiate campus research (Hansson and Monsted, 2008) and eco-entrepreneurship (ASHE, 2009) relative to the blend of academic and entrepreneurial revenue, as well as  differentiation principles associated with entrepreneurship (e.g., idea ”incubator” or “accelerator” on campus – competition, technology, globalization).

These considerations for future research establish the reality of a fluid and dynamic nature of higher education.  Stakeholders have been and will need to continue as vanguards for knowledge creation and incorporate new research and developments as it has since the inception of educational practice. The desired outcome of this research has been to acknowledge the gap in knowledge creation and to offer concrete solutions and suggestions for consideration. The Wheelhouse Intersect Model along with the suggestions above, contribute to a growing body of knowledge and research on this vital topic.

References

  • Al-Mubiad, H. (2014). A new method for promoting critical thinking in online education. International Journal of Advanced
    Corporate Learning, 7    (4), 34-37.
  • American Society of Higher Education [ASHE] (2009).  Professional implications and future research directions.
    Higher Education Report. 34(5), 75-85.
  • Arborisade, P. (2009). Investigating a Nigerian XXL-cohort wiki-learning experience: Observation, feedback and reflection. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(3), 281-288.
  • Badley, G. (2009). Academic writing as shaping and reshaping. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(2), 209-219.
  • Bahhouth J. & Bahhouth, V. (2011). Significance of e-Learning in traditional courses. International Journal of
    Education Research, 6    (2), 1-9.
  • Barbera, E., Layne, L. & Gunawardena, C. N. (2014). Designing online interactions to address disciplinary competencies: A cross-country comparison of faculty perspectives. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
    Learning, 15    (2), 143-169.
  • Bloch, J. & Spataro, S. E. (2014). Cultivating critical thinking dispositions throughout the business curriculum. Business and
    Professional Communication Quarterly, 7    (3), 249-265.
  • Change Management Coach (2016). The Kurt Lewin Change Management Model. Retrieved from: http://www.change-management-coach.com/kurt_lewin.html 
  • Clifton, G. (2012). Supporting the development of critical thinking: Lessons for widening participation. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 14, 29-39. 
  • Coi, W. W. & Sankaran, G. (2015). Promoting critical thinking through an interdisciplinary study abroad program. Journal of
    International Studies, 5    (1), 38-49.
  • Deloitte (2008). Stakeholder engagement, 1. Retrieved from :http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/za/Documents/governance-risk-compliance/ZA_StakeholderEngagement_04042014.pdf
  • Diffen (n.d.) Retrieved from: .http://www.diffen.com/difference/Andragogy_vs_Pedagogy
  • Dill, D. D. (1999). Academic accountability and university adaptation: The architecture of an academic learning organization.
    Higher Education, 38, 127-154.
  • Dunnion, J. & O’Donovan, B. (2014). Systems thinking and higher education: The Vanguard Method. System Practice Action Research, 27, 23-37.
  • Elder. L. & Cosgrove, R. (2013). Critical societies, the educated mind, and the creation of  critical societies: Thoughts from the past, 15-19. Retrieved from: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-societies-thoughts-from-the-past/762
  • Emes, C. & Cleveland- Innes, M. (2003). A journey toward learner-centered curriculum. The Canadian Journal of Higher
    Education, 33    (3), 47-70. 
  • 5ME (2016). Efficiency, profitability, & the 5M’s. Retrieved from: http://5me.com/the-5ms-of-efficiency/explore-the-5ms/
  • Hansson, F. & Monsted, M. (2008). Research leadership as entrepreneurial organizing for research.  Higher Education, 55, 651-670.
  • Hsaio, W. Y., Chen, M., & Hu, H. W. (2013). Assessing online discussions: Adoption of critical thinking as a grading criterion.
    The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 9, 15-25.
  • Kalelioglu, F. & Gulbahar, Y. (2014). The effect of instructional techniques on critical thinking disposition in online learning.
    Educational Technology of Society, 17(1), 248-258.
  • Kemp, L. (2011). Teaching & learning for international students in a ‘learning community’: Creating, sharing, and building knowledge. Insight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 5, 63-74.
  • King, W .R. (2009). Knowledge management and organizational learning. Annals of Information Management, 4.1-11. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0011-1_1.
  • Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-264. 
  • McCarthy, M. (2015). ACA and the triple aim: Musings of a health care actuary. Benefits Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.iscebs.org/Resources/BQ/Pages/BQExecutiveSummaries2015.aspx
  • Matheson, R., Wilkinson, S. C., & Gilhouly, E. (2012). Promoting critical thinking and collaborative working through assessment: Combining patchwork text and online discussion boards. Innovations in Educational and Teaching International, 49(3), 257-267.
  • Mirriam Webster (2015). Retrieved from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wheelhouse 
  • Mirriam Oxford Dictionaries (2016). Retrieved from:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sweet-spot
  • Monsted, M. & Hansson, F. (2010). Creating space for research: The charismatic entrepreneur and research director. Managing Transdisciplinarity in Strategic Foresight, 19(1), 47-56. 
  • Mundernach, B. J. (2006). Thinking critically about critical thinking: Integrating online tools to promote critical thinking. Insight: A Collection of Faculty Scholarship, 1, 41-50.
  • Oxford Dictionary (2015). Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/ 
  • Paul, R. (2004). The state of critical thinking today. Sonoma, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, www.criticalthinkingcommunity.org 
  • Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2009). A glossary of critical thinking terms & concepts.Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. 
  • Reid, J. R. & Anderson, P. R. (2012). Critical thinking in the business classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 52-59. 
  • Rowles, J., Morgan, C., Burns, S. & Merchant, C. (2013). Faculty perceptions of critical thinking as a health sciences university.
    Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(4), 21-35. 
  • Rudnick, J. D., Jr. (2009). Transformational leadership: Model encourages leaders to transcend personal ambitions. Health Progress, 88(3), 36-40. 
  • Scott, S. (2008). Perception of students’ learning critical thinking through debate in a technology classroom: A case study. The Journal of Technology Studies, 34(1), 39-44. 
  • Shaw, C. S. & Holmes, K. E. (2014). Critical thinking and online supplemental instruction: A case study. The Graduate Writing Institute, 19(1) 99-119. 
  • Smilkstein, R. (1991). A national teaching method based on learning theory. Gamut, 2-7. 
  • Sorenson, C. (2015). An examination of the relationship between online class size and instructor performance. Journal of Online Educators Online, 12(1) 140-159. 
  • Stedman, N. L. P. & Adams, B. L. (2014). Getting it to click: Students self-perceived critical thinking style and perceptions of critical thinking instruction in face to face and online course deliver. NACTA Journal, 233-245. 
  • Steyn, G. M. (2015). Harnessing the power of knowledge in higher education. Education, 124(4), 615-631.  
  • Stukalina, Y. (2008). How to prepare students for productive and satisfying careers in the knowledge-based economy: Creating a more efficient educational environment. Baltic Journal on Sustainability, 14(2), 197-207. 
  • Terry, N. & Ervin, B. (2012). Student performing on the California critical thinking skills test. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16, 25-34. 
  • The Critical Thinking Community (2016). Critical Societies: Thoughts from the past. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-societies-thoughts-from-the-past/762 
  • The Critical Thinking Community (2013). Defining critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/410 
  • Thormann, J., Gable S., Fidalgo, P. S., & Blakeslee, G. (2013). Interaction, critical thinking, and social network analysis (SNA) in online courses.  The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 294-318. 
  • Verpoorten, D., Westera, W., & Specht, M. (2011). Using reflection triggers while learning in an online course. British Journal of
    Educational Technology, 43    (6), 1030-1040. 
  • Williams, L. & Lahman, M. (2011). Online discussion, student engagement, and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 38, 127-154. 
  • Zheng, R., Stucky, Z., McAlack, M., Menchana, M., & Stoddart, S. (2005). Web Quest learning as perceived by higher-education learners. TechTrends, 48(4), 41-40.